Age and redintegration in immediate memory and their relationship to task difficulty

Neale, Kerry; Tehan, Gerald

doi:10.3758/bf03192927

Cited by 32 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Both differences could make the Farrand and Jones task more difficult than ours. On the theory that backward recall affects easier tasks more than it affects harder tasks, one way of reconciling the difference is that Farrand and Jones's experiment with delayed serial recall was harder than ours, and thus no difference was observed (see also Neale & Tehan, 2007). TODAM.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Backward recall and benchmark effects of working memory

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four effects-the word length effect, the irrelevant speech effect, the acoustic confusion effect, and the concurrent articulation effect-have played a prominent role in the development of influential theories of immediate memory. Indeed, accounting for these four findings was one of the motivations for creating the phonological loop component of working memory (Baddeley, 1992), and these effects are seen as key data that computational models of short-term memory must account for (Lewandowsky & Farrell, 2008). Despite the numerous studies examining these phenomena, very few studies have examined them using backward recall. To that end, one purpose of the four experiments reported here was to assess whether the four benchmark effects of working memory are observable with backward recall. A second purpose was to test the predictions of two models of memory: Despite their many differences, both the primacy model (Page & Norris, 1998) and the feature model (Nairne, 1990) predict that all four effects should be observed with backward recall. Empirical ReviewWord length effect. The word length effect refers to the finding that lists of short (i.e., one-syllable) words are recalled better than otherwise comparable lists of longer (i.e., multisyllabic) words (Baddeley, Thomson, & Buchan an, 1975; for a review, see . The standard paradigm is forward immediate serial recall, but the word length effect is also observable with reconstruction of order (Nairne, Neath, & Serra, 1997), serial recognition (Baddeley, Chincotta, Stafford, & Turk, 2002), free recall (Watkins, 1972), single-item probe recall (Avons, Wright, & Pammer, 1994), and complex span (Tehan, Hendry, & Kocinski, 2001) tests. However, only a small number of studies have examined whether the effect is observable with backward recall.Cowan et al. (1992, Experiment 3) had subjects recall lists of short and long words in both a forward and a backward order, and recall direction was not known until test. However, a straightforward interpretation of the results is difficult, since word length was manipulated within a list (i.e., the first half of the list was short words, the second half long words), and since the lists had five items, there were not equal numbers of short and long items per list. Moreover, the stimuli used have since been shown to be atypical (see, e.g., Neath, Bireta, & Surprenant, 2003). Cowan, Wood, and Borne (1994) Working memory was designed to explain four benchmark memory effects: the word length effect, the irrelevant speech effect, the acoustic confusion effect, and the concurrent articulation effect. However, almost all research thus far has used tests that emphasize forward recall. In four experiments, we examine whether each effect is observable when the items are recalled in reverse order. Subjects did not know which recall direction would be required until the time of test, ensuring that encoding processes would be identical for both recall directions. Contrary to predictions of both the primacy model and the feature model, the benchm...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Backward recall and benchmark effects of working memory

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…knowing that all the items on the list were reptiles could facilitate the reconstruction of a fragment like cr_ _odi_ e). Neale and Tehan (2007) argued that category membership was being used as a retrieval cue, as is the case in long-term tasks, and it was the use of this retrieval cue that was instrumental in producing the advantage in the similar lists. The key feature of these explanations is that there is no need to assume the existence of associative links between items for the cueing or search space explanation to be effective.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Associative relatedness enhances recall and produces false memories in immediate serial recall.

Tehan

2010

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The influence of permanent lexical network in immediate serial recall is well established. The corresponding influence of permanent semantic networks is less clear, although such networks are known to both facilitate memory in long-term memory tasks and to produce false memories in those same tasks. The current experiment involves the study of Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) lists for immediate serial recall. The trials in the experiment involved presenting the six strongest items from the DRM lists either in intact associatively related lists or where those items had been randomly mixed to produce unrelated lists. The results of the experiment indicated that the associatively related lists were better recalled in order than unrelated lists and the nonpresented critical lure was falsely recalled relatively frequently. The results of the experiment confirm the importance of associative semantic networks in short-term memory.

show abstract

“…However, other scores can be derived from the data and have the potential to clarify the nature of similarity effects (Neale & Tehan, 2007). We therefore used three scoring procedures, resulting in three dependent measures, which we refer to as serial recall, item recall, and order accuracy.…”

Section: Scoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phonological similarity effects in simple and complex span tasks

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments were conducted to examine the effect of phonological similarity in simple and complex memory span tasks. In Experiment 1, participants performed either a simple or a complex span task, and the memoranda within lists were either phonologically similar or distinct. Phonologically similar lists consisted of words that rhymed.The simple span task was word span. There were two complex span tasks; one was the original reading span task, and the other was a variant of reading span in which all the sentences within a list were contextually related. The classic phonological similarity decrement was observed in word span. In contrast, phonological similarity facilitation was observed in both versions of reading span. This facilitation effect was further investigated in Experiment 2 using two new versions of reading span. In Experiment 2, the sentences in reading span were either short or long, and the memoranda were presented separately from, and were unrelated to, the sentences. Again, words within phonologically similar lists rhymed, and again, facilitation was observed. In Experiment 3, phonological similarity was operationalized in terms of feature overlap, rather than rhyme. The classic phonological similarity decrement was still observed in word span, but facilitation was not observed in complex span. The results suggest that phonological similarity, when operationalized using words that rhyme, serves as a list retrieval cue and that complex span tasks are more dependent on cue-driven memory retrieval mechanisms than are simple span tasks.

show abstract

Age and redintegration in immediate memory and their relationship to task difficulty

Cited by 32 publications

References 34 publications

Backward recall and benchmark effects of working memory

Backward recall and benchmark effects of working memory

Associative relatedness enhances recall and produces false memories in immediate serial recall.

Phonological similarity effects in simple and complex span tasks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About